On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> wrote:
> Man that sounds awesome. I need that now. So does that mean you'd
> have one beefy SQL server for all the updates and everything writes to
> that, and then you'd have a bunch of read-only servers and new data
> trickles into them from the master continuously?
Yep. You can also do something similar but less efficient now with
slony or some other replication engine. But they're less simple to
set up and usually less efficient than log shipping.